lol. I just assumed it would be discussing theology and writing by the Church Fathers and stuff.

Silly me.

You aren't the only one.

Some people lives lives of blood not of ink.

And this coming from someone who has forgotten more this year about what he has read than most around here could retain in a few lifetimes.

So I ain't against books and philosophers and theologers. But you have to understand, if you are going to talk about life, quotes don't carry much weight, especially when you are talk to people who are harmed by the absolute lack of the ability to apply the aforementioned quotes with any sort of reasonable tact and context.

lol. I just assumed it would be discussing theology and writing by the Church Fathers and stuff.

Silly me.

You aren't the only one.

Some people lives lives of blood not of ink.

And this coming from someone who has forgotten more this year about what he has read than most around here could retain in a few lifetimes.

So I ain't against books and philosophers and theologers. But you have to understand, if you are going to talk about life, quotes don't carry much weight, especially when you are talk to people who are harmed by the absolute lack of the ability to apply the aforementioned quotes with any sort of reasonable tact and context.

Ok, we get it, your a brilliant absent-minded intellectual, but I don't really understand what any of that has to do with your rant against quotes. Who said anything about quotes?

lol. I just assumed it would be discussing theology and writing by the Church Fathers and stuff.

Silly me.

I enjoy the honesty of these forums, personally. You can thank the Internet for breaking down the usual walls of discretion...

Or the womb in my case. I ain't much different offline or online.

You folks who need the internet to be "honest" I feel sad for.

So you openly debate controversial and intimate subjects with complete strangers in real life on a regular basis? Do random people start spilling out their personal issues into your ears at random intervals throughout the day? Sounds exhausting...

lol. I just assumed it would be discussing theology and writing by the Church Fathers and stuff.

Silly me.

You aren't the only one.

Some people lives lives of blood not of ink.

And this coming from someone who has forgotten more this year about what he has read than most around here could retain in a few lifetimes.

So I ain't against books and philosophers and theologers. But you have to understand, if you are going to talk about life, quotes don't carry much weight, especially when you are talk to people who are harmed by the absolute lack of the ability to apply the aforementioned quotes with any sort of reasonable tact and context.

Ok, we get it, your a brilliant absent-minded intellectual, but I don't really understand what any of that has to do with your rant against quotes. Who said anything about quotes?

I love Dpaula's responses in this thread-- even if the idea of sex=procreation is, I think, more Catholic than Orthodox.

Is there an official Orthodox view on sex?Serious question. I'm curious.

augustin is a frequent unwanted reminder of such things around here.

In what way?

Consistently bursting the romanticized bubble of those who turn their pathology into spiritual virtue and rewrite the (often "old") world in their illness.

^----If this seems cryptic, I'll be blunt:

Socially inept folks who can't have sex and find their solution to their problem in making it a virtue clothed in the spirituality of Orthodoxy. They then like to think they are of the same mind and heart of Church Fathers speaking of and to no one like themselves. augustin reminds them of all of the above in tersely turned brilliance.

In reality, most Orthodox basically act like most folks wherever they live, perhaps more towards the slight conservative side of stuff.

This ain't complicated.

So when it comes to gays being forever celibate, well hey, if they can't have sex, no one can either, especially gays.

The more sane folks who can actually have sex pretty much whenever they want, realize that such a "cross" to be enormously difficult and are less hostile toward homosexual sin.

I think you must have missed the context of the discussion- the definition in question was referring to the religious significance of sex (inside a marriage).

However, I would object to the opinion that anyone who exercises restraint is plagued with "social ineptitude"- I am personally acquainted with both situations well enough to tell the difference!

I love Dpaula's responses in this thread-- even if the idea of sex=procreation is, I think, more Catholic than Orthodox.

Is there an official Orthodox view on sex?Serious question. I'm curious.

augustin is a frequent unwanted reminder of such things around here.

In what way?

Consistently bursting the romanticized bubble of those who turn their pathology into spiritual virtue and rewrite the (often "old") world in their illness.

^----If this seems cryptic, I'll be blunt:

Socially inept folks who can't have sex and find their solution to their problem in making it a virtue clothed in the spirituality of Orthodoxy. They then like to think they are of the same mind and heart of Church Fathers speaking of and to no one like themselves. augustin reminds them of all of the above in tersely turned brilliance.

In reality, most Orthodox basically act like most folks wherever they live, perhaps more towards the slight conservative side of stuff.

This ain't complicated.

So when it comes to gays being forever celibate, well hey, if they can't have sex, no one can either, especially gays.

The more sane folks who can actually have sex pretty much whenever they want, realize that such a "cross" to be enormously difficult and are less hostile toward homosexual sin.

I think you must have missed the context of the discussion- the definition in question was referring to the religious significance of sex (inside a marriage).

However, I would object to the opinion that anyone who exercises restraint is plagued with "social ineptitude"- I am personally acquainted with both situations well enough to tell the difference!

There is a larger context here that this discussion resides in.

And I am not missing the differences. I am quite aware of people who have more certain sincere choices.

I "know" people here. And I belong to a couple cults. And everyone likes to spiritualize their pathologies. Religion is often the opiate fo the people. Ain't gotta be (and Marx certainly making some absolute statement).

In any case, I'll the let the forever virgin or unhappily married or constantly jilted get back to judging the gays.

But my point is that augustin takes the wind outta their sails by pointing out specific and frequent disconnects with the oft held double standards around here.

How many threads do we have about usury again?

I know people love when I do that.

Or liars?

Or gluttons (there is the crypto paleo diet thread I guess)?

Or people who squander a lot of time on pointless stuff? Oh we celebrate that . . .

I love Dpaula's responses in this thread-- even if the idea of sex=procreation is, I think, more Catholic than Orthodox.

Is there an official Orthodox view on sex?Serious question. I'm curious.

augustin is a frequent unwanted reminder of such things around here.

In what way?

Consistently bursting the romanticized bubble of those who turn their pathology into spiritual virtue and rewrite the (often "old") world in their illness.

^----If this seems cryptic, I'll be blunt:

Socially inept folks who can't have sex and find their solution to their problem in making it a virtue clothed in the spirituality of Orthodoxy. They then like to think they are of the same mind and heart of Church Fathers speaking of and to no one like themselves. augustin reminds them of all of the above in tersely turned brilliance.

In reality, most Orthodox basically act like most folks wherever they live, perhaps more towards the slight conservative side of stuff.

This ain't complicated.

So when it comes to gays being forever celibate, well hey, if they can't have sex, no one can either, especially gays.

The more sane folks who can actually have sex pretty much whenever they want, realize that such a "cross" to be enormously difficult and are less hostile toward homosexual sin.

I think you must have missed the context of the discussion- the definition in question was referring to the religious significance of sex (inside a marriage).

However, I would object to the opinion that anyone who exercises restraint is plagued with "social ineptitude"- I am personally acquainted with both situations well enough to tell the difference!

There is a larger context here that this discussion resides in.

And I am not missing the differences. I am quite aware of people who have more certain sincere choices.

I "know" people here. And I belong to a couple cults. And everyone likes to spiritualize their pathologies. Religion is often the opiate fo the people. Ain't gotta be (and Marx certainly making some absolute statement).

In any case, I'll the let the forever virgin or unhappily married or constantly jilted get back to judging the gays.

But my point is that augustin takes the wind outta their sails by pointing out specific and frequent disconnects with the oft held double standards around here.

How many threads do we have about usury again?

I know people love when I do that.

Or liars?

Or gluttons (there is the crypto paleo diet thread I guess)?

Or people who squander a lot of time on pointless stuff? Oh we celebrate that . . .

OK, I understand you now (although you're still speaking in your own absolutes and being unfair to us often-jilted who don't or try not to judge gays, or us who don't or try not to spiritualize pathologies).

I love Dpaula's responses in this thread-- even if the idea of sex=procreation is, I think, more Catholic than Orthodox.

Is there an official Orthodox view on sex?Serious question. I'm curious.

augustin is a frequent unwanted reminder of such things around here.

In what way?

Consistently bursting the romanticized bubble of those who turn their pathology into spiritual virtue and rewrite the (often "old") world in their illness.

^----If this seems cryptic, I'll be blunt:

Socially inept folks who can't have sex and find their solution to their problem in making it a virtue clothed in the spirituality of Orthodoxy. They then like to think they are of the same mind and heart of Church Fathers speaking of and to no one like themselves. augustin reminds them of all of the above in tersely turned brilliance.

In reality, most Orthodox basically act like most folks wherever they live, perhaps more towards the slight conservative side of stuff.

This ain't complicated.

So when it comes to gays being forever celibate, well hey, if they can't have sex, no one can either, especially gays.

The more sane folks who can actually have sex pretty much whenever they want, realize that such a "cross" to be enormously difficult and are less hostile toward homosexual sin.

I think you must have missed the context of the discussion- the definition in question was referring to the religious significance of sex (inside a marriage).

However, I would object to the opinion that anyone who exercises restraint is plagued with "social ineptitude"- I am personally acquainted with both situations well enough to tell the difference!

There is a larger context here that this discussion resides in.

And I am not missing the differences. I am quite aware of people who have more certain sincere choices.

I "know" people here. And I belong to a couple cults. And everyone likes to spiritualize their pathologies. Religion is often the opiate fo the people. Ain't gotta be (and Marx certainly making some absolute statement).

In any case, I'll the let the forever virgin or unhappily married or constantly jilted get back to judging the gays.

But my point is that augustin takes the wind outta their sails by pointing out specific and frequent disconnects with the oft held double standards around here.

How many threads do we have about usury again?

I know people love when I do that.

Or liars?

Or gluttons (there is the crypto paleo diet thread I guess)?

Or people who squander a lot of time on pointless stuff? Oh we celebrate that . . .

OK, I understand you now (although you're still speaking in your own absolutes and being unfair to us often-jilted who don't or try not to judge gays, or us who don't or try not to spiritualize pathologies).

I ain't being unfair to anyone.

Those who know who they are know who they are.

And everyone spiritualizes pathology who turn to religion. We all do.

Mix high volume internet nerdz and seckz, well you can imagine what pathology gets twisted into virtue more than others.

The Church teaches homosexual acts are sinful; therefore, one must choose to or choose not to engage in those acts. If one chooses to engage, he or she defies the Church. It isn't complicated. It is actually very simple. Everything else is white noise chatter.

lol. I just assumed it would be discussing theology and writing by the Church Fathers and stuff.

Silly me.

I enjoy the honesty of these forums, personally. You can thank the Internet for breaking down the usual walls of discretion...

Or the womb in my case. I ain't much different offline or online.

You folks who need the internet to be "honest" I feel sad for.

So you openly debate controversial and intimate subjects with complete strangers in real life on a regular basis? Do random people start spilling out their personal issues into your ears at random intervals throughout the day? Sounds exhausting...

You have no idea.

Ever been to America? People can't shut up.

Even if they ain't telling you their life story they are telling someone else, either in person or on their phone.

The Church teaches homosexual acts are sinful; therefore, one must choose to or choose not to engage in those acts. If one chooses to engage, he or she defies the Church. It isn't complicated. It is actually very simple. Everything else is white noise chatter.

Cancer is sin.

How do I choose that?

I just had an uncharitable thought about you, how do I choose not to do that?

Paying interest is a sin . . . you stopping that tomorrow? How about earning it?

Your understanding of sin and human being is rather reductive at best.

lol. I just assumed it would be discussing theology and writing by the Church Fathers and stuff.

Silly me.

You aren't the only one.

Some people lives lives of blood not of ink.

And this coming from someone who has forgotten more this year about what he has read than most around here could retain in a few lifetimes.

So I ain't against books and philosophers and theologers. But you have to understand, if you are going to talk about life, quotes don't carry much weight, especially when you are talk to people who are harmed by the absolute lack of the ability to apply the aforementioned quotes with any sort of reasonable tact and context.

Ok, we get it, your a brilliant absent-minded intellectual, but I don't really understand what any of that has to do with your rant against quotes. Who said anything about quotes?

It has nothing to do with it.

I guess you will not be quoting the Church Fathers? Do you people even bother to read what you all write and agree to?

lol. I just assumed it would be discussing theology and writing by the Church Fathers and stuff.

Silly me.

You aren't the only one.

Some people lives lives of blood not of ink.

And this coming from someone who has forgotten more this year about what he has read than most around here could retain in a few lifetimes.

So I ain't against books and philosophers and theologers. But you have to understand, if you are going to talk about life, quotes don't carry much weight, especially when you are talk to people who are harmed by the absolute lack of the ability to apply the aforementioned quotes with any sort of reasonable tact and context.

Ok, we get it, your a brilliant absent-minded intellectual, but I don't really understand what any of that has to do with your rant against quotes. Who said anything about quotes?

Actually you get nothing.

What sins are you functionally constitutionally almost incapable of dealing with?

Of those which have some great enormous social stigma attached?

Please let me know and lets spend the rest of the year going into minute detail about that day after day after day after day after day after day.

We'll talk about how much we hate what you "decide" to do, but how much we love you. (Actually that love part will just get tacked on once someone brings us to our senses somewhat and we decide to mitigate our harm caused by saying how much we hate sin but love you. Heck we'll even say people like you are our best friends.)

Why? What would be the point? Straight people haven't been attacked, killed, threatened, harassed, bullied, vilified, ostracized, and marginalized (for thousands of years) merely for being openly and publicly straight.

You missed the Youtube links on the page previous to this post of yours

The Church teaches homosexual acts are sinful; therefore, one must choose to or choose not to engage in those acts. If one chooses to engage, he or she defies the Church. It isn't complicated. It is actually very simple. Everything else is white noise chatter.

The Church teaches homosexual acts are sinful; therefore, one must choose to or choose not to engage in those acts. If one chooses to engage, he or she defies the Church. It isn't complicated. It is actually very simple. Everything else is white noise chatter.

The Church teaches homosexual acts are sinful; therefore, one must choose to or choose not to engage in those acts. If one chooses to engage, he or she defies the Church. It isn't complicated. It is actually very simple. Everything else is white noise chatter.

Problem solved.

Did you seriously just quote yourself

It's the internet way to repeat something already posted. If it's right, no need to change it.

"Socially inept folk who can't have sex". You know so much of people whose views differ from your own, how? Read this masterpiece of inventive fiction and reached for the BS meter. The best that might be said of this 'priceless' gem is that it is a judgemental comment on a supposed group of people he is in no position make an informed comment in the first place.

As for the rest......you seem every bit as intolerant as those you criticise. Have a good day!

The Church teaches homosexual acts are sinful; therefore, one must choose to or choose not to engage in those acts. If one chooses to engage, he or she defies the Church. It isn't complicated. It is actually very simple. Everything else is white noise chatter.

Problem solved.

Did you seriously just quote yourself

It's the internet way to repeat something already posted. If it's right, no need to change it.

I really don't get why any of that bore repeating.

Logged

"Some have such command of their bowels, that they can break wind continuously at pleasure, so as to produce the effect of singing."- St. Augustine of Hippo

The Church teaches homosexual acts are sinful; therefore, one must choose to or choose not to engage in those acts. If one chooses to engage, he or she defies the Church. It isn't complicated. It is actually very simple. Everything else is white noise chatter.

Problem solved.

Did you seriously just quote yourself

It's the internet way to repeat something already posted. If it's right, no need to change it.

The Church teaches homosexual acts are sinful; therefore, one must choose to or choose not to engage in those acts. If one chooses to engage, he or she defies the Church. It isn't complicated. It is actually very simple. Everything else is white noise chatter.

Problem solved.

Did you seriously just quote yourself

It's the internet way to repeat something already posted. If it's right, no need to change it.

I really don't get why any of that bore repeating.

Logged

"Some have such command of their bowels, that they can break wind continuously at pleasure, so as to produce the effect of singing."- St. Augustine of Hippo

The Church teaches homosexual acts are sinful; therefore, one must choose to or choose not to engage in those acts. If one chooses to engage, he or she defies the Church. It isn't complicated. It is actually very simple. Everything else is white noise chatter.

Problem solved.

Did you seriously just quote yourself

It's the internet way to repeat something already posted. If it's right, no need to change it.

lol. I just assumed it would be discussing theology and writing by the Church Fathers and stuff.

Silly me.

You aren't the only one.

Some people lives lives of blood not of ink.

And this coming from someone who has forgotten more this year about what he has read than most around here could retain in a few lifetimes.

So I ain't against books and philosophers and theologers. But you have to understand, if you are going to talk about life, quotes don't carry much weight, especially when you are talk to people who are harmed by the absolute lack of the ability to apply the aforementioned quotes with any sort of reasonable tact and context.

Ok, we get it, your a brilliant absent-minded intellectual, but I don't really understand what any of that has to do with your rant against quotes. Who said anything about quotes?

Actually you get nothing.

What sins are you functionally constitutionally almost incapable of dealing with?

Of those which have some great enormous social stigma attached?

Please let me know and lets spend the rest of the year going into minute detail about that day after day after day after day after day after day.

We'll talk about how much we hate what you "decide" to do, but how much we love you. (Actually that love part will just get tacked on once someone brings us to our senses somewhat and we decide to mitigate our harm caused by saying how much we hate sin but love you. Heck we'll even say people like you are our best friends.)

So your turn.

Context: what you are all missing.

I will explain context. this is a thread to discuss whether homosexuality is a choice or innate. There have been many comments about it, some good, some inane. If you don't like the topic, it is advisable to go to a different thread rather then broadcasting blanket condemnations against everyone who has an opinion on this topic. The topic isn't being discussed because of the social stigma. It is being discussed because there is a difference of opinion on the topic. I could post my sins out for discussion, but the conversation wouldn't go very far because everyone would acknowledge that they are sins. If someone would like to argue vehemently that my gluttony or self-pride is not a sin, I'm sure it could turn into a heated discussion. In the meantime, I still don't understand what your condesending attitude about everyone else's knowledge not comparing to yours helps the conversation in any way. Ironically, we are now getting into a heated discussion about pride, so I guess you got what you wanted.

So when it comes to gays being forever celibate, well hey, if they can't have sex, no one can either, especially gays.

The more sane folks who can actually have sex pretty much whenever they want, realize that such a "cross" to be enormously difficult and are less hostile toward homosexual sin.

Wait....are you saying having sex outside of marriage is absolutely fine and I'm just sitting here waiting for no real reason? ? ? ? Seriously??

You quoted something I wrote then paraphrased it asking if you got it correct.

Work on the reading or the rhetoric. Cause I ain't the one confusing things here.

I apologize, kind sir, but reading the quoted post, I seriously thought that you were saying having sex whenever wanted will change one's opinion about homosexuality. And since I was the one talking about choosing to abstain due to the fact that I'm not married, and you made the comment "if they can't have sex, no one can either, especially gays." , I proceeded to ask you if you think having sex outside marriage is absolutely fine? Maybe I was wrong in assuming that's what you meant, but you obviously could've simply answered my question with "yes" or "no" (I was secretly hoping you will also justify your answer). Instead you choose to use some smart remark that you somehow think solved anything. In the end, I still don't know what you meant in the above quote from you, I still don't know if you think it's ok to have sex outside marriage, and I still don't know why you display such an attitude towards me when you know nothing about who I am and how I am.

But maybe you decide to answer my question " Do you think it's ok to have sex outside of marriage?" (Mind you, I'm talking about the real marriage, the one blessed in and by the Orthodox Church).And if yes, please tell me on what you base your opinion.And if no, please tell me how then is it ok to have homosexual relationships EVER?

All I want to say is that...we DO have a choice.I am living proof of it!

I might have missed on it but choice are you a living proof of?

The choice of not having sex, abstinence.

The choice to understand and accept that sex is given to us not to use it according to our desires and preferences, but to procreate and procreate only.

Any other reason for sex is a choice we make consciously. We chose to think about it and act on it.

so are you considering becoming a nun?

I wish God would've blessed me in this manner, but no. I choose to get married. In September, actually. Until then, we sleep in separate bedrooms and we live like brother and sister. If he didn't agree to get baptized, and I wanted to stay in communion with my Church, I would not have any other choice but abstain for the rest of my life, as my love for him is just that....pure love. Sex is just a tool to make kids. The pleasure that comes from it, it's just a cause of our fallen state.

I know that gay people feel that pure love towards their partner, I've seen their love. All I'm saying is that they can live as brother and sister forever and they will be just fine, not to mention they will be in communion with the Church, they will be appreciated for their choice and most importantly, God will be happy!

Ok, I've said my piece. Lord have mercy!

Like I tell my Gay brother. If you dont like having sex with a woman, then just get married to one.

Problem solved

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

All I want to say is that...we DO have a choice.I am living proof of it!

I might have missed on it but choice are you a living proof of?

The choice of not having sex, abstinence.

The choice to understand and accept that sex is given to us not to use it according to our desires and preferences, but to procreate and procreate only.

Any other reason for sex is a choice we make consciously. We chose to think about it and act on it.

so are you considering becoming a nun?

I wish God would've blessed me in this manner, but no. I choose to get married. In September, actually. Until then, we sleep in separate bedrooms and we live like brother and sister. If he didn't agree to get baptized, and I wanted to stay in communion with my Church, I would not have any other choice but abstain for the rest of my life, as my love for him is just that....pure love. Sex is just a tool to make kids. The pleasure that comes from it, it's just a cause of our fallen state.

I know that gay people feel that pure love towards their partner, I've seen their love. All I'm saying is that they can live as brother and sister forever and they will be just fine, not to mention they will be in communion with the Church, they will be appreciated for their choice and most importantly, God will be happy!

Ok, I've said my piece. Lord have mercy!

Like I tell my Gay brother. If you dont like having sex with a woman, then just get married to one.

But maybe you decide to answer my question " Do you think it's ok to have sex outside of marriage?" (Mind you, I'm talking about the real marriage, the one blessed in and by the Orthodox Church).And if yes, please tell me on what you base your opinion.And if no, please tell me how then is it ok to have homosexual relationships EVER?

Thank you!

Well, things happen, one leads to the next and you know. Not saying it's right (as an ideal) but to get bent out of shape about rather minor sins like those involving the genitalia, while at the same time be fine with pretty much everything else is certainly no good. Like sins -but few call them as such-institutionalized in the church like all the praises going to great donors/benefactors, treatment of rich vs poor etc. Not many even notice these that's how common they are. But it's easy to hunt down (stereotypically) gay people. Why, say, people driving expensive cars aren't given even a small bible/patristic thumping?

« Last Edit: May 22, 2013, 02:14:03 PM by augustin717 »

Logged

"I saw a miracle where 2 people entered church one by baptism and one by chrismation. On pictures the one received by full baptism was shinning in light the one by chrismation no."

'Evil isn't the real threat to the world. Stupid is just as destructive as evil, maybe more so, and it's a hell of a lot more common. What we really need is a crusade against stupid. That might actually make a difference.'~Harry Dresden

Having an opinion if something is wrong is just that. An opinion. Whether Im guilty of other sins are immaterial. Im still allowed to have an opinion. I also think drunkenness is a sin, something I struggle with far worse.

PP

Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker

But maybe you decide to answer my question " Do you think it's ok to have sex outside of marriage?" (Mind you, I'm talking about the real marriage, the one blessed in and by the Orthodox Church).And if yes, please tell me on what you base your opinion.And if no, please tell me how then is it ok to have homosexual relationships EVER?

Thank you!

Well, things happen, one leads to the next and you know. Not saying it's right (as an ideal) but to get bent out of shape about rather minor sins like those involving the genitalia, while at the same time be fine with pretty much everything else is certainly no good. Like sins -but few call them as such-institutionalized in the church like all the praises going to great donors/benefactors, treatment of rich vs poor etc. Not many even notice these that's how common they are. But it's easy to hunt down (stereotypically) gay people. Why, say, people driving expensive cars aren't given even a small bible/patristic thumping?

I'm not talking for anybody else, but me. I don't generalize either, meaning that if I do something I won't require you to do the same thing just because I do it. I won't even expect you to understand why I'm doing what I'm doing. And certainly I won't force you to accept my choices. They are my choices and this is my life. So I seriously don't care what you think about my choice and I also don't care about what gay people choose to do with their own lives. But I do care when they are trying to force me to accept their sinful behavior (in my opinion) calling me names and judging me for MY beliefs.

In a perfect world, nobody would commit any sins. But this is not a perfect world, and we are not perfect. We sin. Jesus died for our sins. I pray really hard to seriously understand this concepts. Faith. Forgiveness. Love. Sincerity. Respect. Humbleness. Again, I'm not talking for anybody else, but me. You either choose to believe me, or you choose not to believe me and decide to throw one more smart comment at me to prove something, I don't know what.

But maybe you decide to answer my question " Do you think it's ok to have sex outside of marriage?" (Mind you, I'm talking about the real marriage, the one blessed in and by the Orthodox Church).And if yes, please tell me on what you base your opinion.And if no, please tell me how then is it ok to have homosexual relationships EVER?

Thank you!

Well, things happen, one leads to the next and you know. Not saying it's right (as an ideal) but to get bent out of shape about rather minor sins like those involving the genitalia, while at the same time be fine with pretty much everything else is certainly no good. Like sins -but few call them as such-institutionalized in the church like all the praises going to great donors/benefactors, treatment of rich vs poor etc. Not many even notice these that's how common they are. But it's easy to hunt down (stereotypically) gay people.

Why, say, people driving expensive cars aren't given even a small bible/patristic thumping?

Like "muzzle the ox that treads the grain?"

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

lol. I just assumed it would be discussing theology and writing by the Church Fathers and stuff.

Silly me.

I enjoy the honesty of these forums, personally. You can thank the Internet for breaking down the usual walls of discretion...

Or the womb in my case. I ain't much different offline or online.

You folks who need the internet to be "honest" I feel sad for.

Ooops! Something else we agree on.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth